Great composers that are not your cup of tea

[Larry Rinkel]

Perhaps but Bach's coffee cantata should be everyone's cup of tea. 

Unless everyone's cup of tea is the Tea divertissement (Danse Chinoise) from The Nutcracker.

[Florestan]

Sure Vivaldi's music is pleasant enough. But I don't get the feeling while listening to his violin concerto #400 that it tells me anything new that I didn't get by listening to his violin concerto #399.

This is true enough. But I guess that, apart from the really great ones, you could say the same thing about three-quarters of the Baroque composers (and I would dare say of all composers who ever lived). Be it as it may, I see no reason why pleasant music should be considered inferior to profound music. There's a time for everything under the sun: a time for Mahler and a time for Vivaldi. There are evenings when I come home tired, weary and depressed. All I want is to sit quiet in my armchair, a glass of wine in hand, and just let my mind wander dreamily. I think Vivaldi is just perfect music for that. And for those hours of simple, tranquil pleasure I am grateful to him.

[quintett op.57]

Sure Vivaldi's music is pleasant enough. But I don't get the feeling while listening to his violin concerto #400 that it tells me anything new that I didn't get by listening to his violin concerto #399.

If you can't see the really big difference between the 4 seasons (Quite unusual big difference for a cycle of concertos in the baroque era) you should listen again, and then hear the next concertos in the opus.
Then you could also compare them to La Stravaganza op.4.....
This is not true. One could have said the same with Handel's concerti grossi if he had not listened well enough.

[71 dB]

Vivaldi's concertos are redundant but good. It does not make much sense to collect/listen to all concertos. I have one disc of 7 cello consertos, another disc of 7 oboe concertos and one disc of sacret music. Concertos for flute, bassoon, recorder and violin could be nice additions as well as one complete opera. Vivaldi's sacret music is interesting...

Vivaldi is my small cup of tea.

[Harry]

Vivaldi's concertos are redundant but good. It does not make much sense to collect/listen to all concertos. I have one disc of 7 cello consertos, another disc of 7 oboe concertos and one disc of sacret music. Concertos for flute, bassoon, recorder and violin could be nice additions as well as one complete opera. Vivaldi's sacret music is interesting...

Vivaldi is my small cup of tea.

And in this case I strongly disagree with you my friend!
Small cup of tea for you, well yes, that may be.
But in the context of music history he is a top-dog.
For me it is worthwhile to collect as much music by him as I can.
I am well on my way accomplishing just that.

[quintett op.57]

Vivaldi's concertos are redundant but good.

I'm sorry, you're influenced by all you've read or heard about him. Objectively, he was a genious.
It's not only good. It's magnificent. How can you all refuse to see that? It's obvious!

[71 dB]

And in this case I strongly disagree with you my friend!
Small cup of tea for you, well yes, that may be.
But in the context of music history he is a top-dog.
For me it is worthwhile to collect as much music by him as I can.
I am well on my way accomplishing just that.

By small cup I mean smaller doses. Vivaldi sounds heavenly if I haven't heard his music for a while but I have difficulties enjoying an hour of his concertos. Handel is the opposite (large cup of tea). I can listen to his music for hours and hours without getting bored or tired. Elgar is a cup of strong tea; after 2 hours of listening my euphoric head is full of music and I need to "cool down".

I'm sorry, you're influenced by all you've read or heard about him. Objectively, he was a genious.
It's not only good. It's magnificent. How can you all refuse to see that? It's obvious!

Vivaldi was a genious combining melody, harmony and grace-notes. otherwise I wouldn't call him a genius.

[Christo]

Well, to return to the original question, during the last 15 years I forced myself to overcome my original distaste for (a.o.) Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shosta.

But so far, some important composers still mean nothing to me - or even worse. Among them are:

Richard Strauss (one vast emptiness for me, alsmost like a Dutch modern novel :-)
Robert Schumann (heard never anything not trivial by him, not even his final symphony stays in mind)
One W.A. Mozart (though I love his later symphonies and concertos, he died too young to fulfil his promises)

[Harry]

Well, to return to the original question, during the last 15 years I forced myself to overcome my original distaste for (a.o.) Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shosta.

But so far, some important composers still mean nothing to me - or even worse. Among them are:

Richard Strauss (one vast emptiness for me, alsmost like a Dutch modern novel :-)
Robert Schumann (heard never anything not trivial by him, not even his final symphony stays in mind)
One W.A. Mozart (though I love his later symphonies and concertos, he died too young to fulfil his promises)

I am shocked and surprised! 
But that happens all the time!
Good day to you my friend.

[Christo]

I am shocked and surprised!    But that happens all the time!   Good day to you my friend.

Please, dear Harry, don't read this - if you find it abusive or if it's bad for your heart condition.

But IF you chose to do so, I have an even bigger shock for you. I forgot to mention another composer who means very little to me, even if I forced myself to listen dozens of times to his four symphonies in a couple of new recordings I bought, during my last Christmas break:

I mean one Johannes Brahms, you might have heard of ...

[Harry]

Please, dear Harry, don't read this - if you find it abusive or if it's bad for your heart condition.

But IF you chose to do so, I have an even bigger shock for you. I forgot to mention another composer who means very little to me, even if I forced myself to listen dozens of times to his four symphonies in a couple of new recordings I bought, during my last Christmas break:

I mean one Johannes Brahms, you might have heard of ...

Well you are good for a few surprises, but I always knew that of course.
I actually have big problems with his piano concertos.
You like a lot of other composers, so that compensates a bit I guess.
Its not abusive to me, and I have no heart condition, so don't worry about that. 0:)

[Florestan]

I actually have big problems with his piano concertos.

Why?

[71 dB]

Well, to return to the original question, during the last 15 years I forced myself to overcome my original distaste for (a.o.) Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shosta.

But so far, some important composers still mean nothing to me - or even worse. Among them are:

Richard Strauss (one vast emptiness for me, alsmost like a Dutch modern novel :-)
Robert Schumann (heard never anything not trivial by him, not even his final symphony stays in mind)
One W.A. Mozart (though I love his later symphonies and concertos, he died too young to fulfil his promises)

Please, dear Harry, don't read this - if you find it abusive or if it's bad for your heart condition.

But IF you chose to do so, I have an even bigger shock for you. I forgot to mention another composer who means very little to me, even if I forced myself to listen dozens of times to his four symphonies in a couple of new recordings I bought, during my last Christmas break:

I mean one Johannes Brahms, you might have heard of ...

After reading this I feel no oblication to like Mahler, Bruckner and Sibelius.

It took me a while before I liked Mozart. Then I "got it" and Mozart became my #4 composer.

[Florestan]

After reading this I feel no oblication to like Mahler, Bruckner and Sibelius.

There is no obligation to like them, anyway.

[Harry]

Why?

As I explained in another thread, I think the orchestral part and the piano part not a happy match. The bombastic beginning of the first piano concerto clearly shows this. I am put of by this hammering away on the piano.
As many before me, composers and listeners alike, it is said that it is a piano sonate, coupled to a symphony.
And that is what it really feels to me. But you know its my opinion, and not a denigration of Brahms work. As I said before I have all the works Brahms composed, apart from the vocal things, so I think him a fine composer.
But the piano concertos...............
Saying that however made it a open door to ridicule my feelings about it, and instead of convincing me otherwise, or advising performances that might change my mind, they were all telling me how wonderful they are.
I understand that fully, since I try also to convince posters what a wonderful composers Telemann and Huber are.
Somehow that doesn't work either.

[quintett op.57]

There is no obligation to like them, anyway.

Sure, but I'm sure we can enjoy almost all of them if we make the effort. We're all influenced by non-musical reasons (me included). Our mind is not free

[quintett op.57]

As I explained in another thread, I think the orchestral part and the piano part not a happy match. The bombastic beginning of the first piano concerto clearly shows this. I am put of by this hammering away on the piano.
As many before me, composers and listeners alike, it is said that it is a piano sonate, coupled to a symphony.
And that is what it really feels to me. But you know its my opinion, and not a denigration of Brahms work. As I said before I have all the works Brahms composed, apart from the vocal things, so I think him a fine composer.

what about the 2nd?

[Harry]

what about the 2nd?

The second piano concerto is much easier on the ear, and better married in terms of orchestral/piano balance.
Therefore I have to find performances that play it lucid, with pert tempi, and internal balance so that I will be able to hear all without the score.

[Harry]

There is no obligation to like them, anyway.

O, but we like you Andrei!

[Florestan]

O, but we like you Andrei!

Thanks, thanks, dear friend!